Saul Perlmutter: ‘scientific discoveries aren’t made to order’

Although I'd agree with virtually everything written in this article, the need to push for even more funding of blue-sky type research really has to be discussed in the context of what is actually needed from science. This is particularly important when it comes to science funding, which is and always will be limited and is often not unrestricted - i.e. the funds are raised with a particular purpose in mind. In a competition for a limited fund for instance, how in fact do you compare and rank one scientist's 'blue-sky' proposal above another? Currently, awarding bodies often then rely on the reputation of such candidates - a form of rewarding 'celebrities' for past successes rather than looking to the future. If there is indeed a healthy element of chance and serendipity in blue sky advances, is having made such a discovery in the past of itself a good predictor that that researcher will go on to repeat such successes again? Also should targeted funding, say from a charity devoted to a particular human disease, celebrate the success of it's basic science (blue sky) research program if it is based on a chance discovery that led to an advance in cosmology? More is needed of science than just 'gigantic surprises and transformations'.